Appeal 6002568

The appeal is dismissed.

The scheme includes the conversion of a garage. There is no dispute between the main parties over this element of the scheme. I also have no concerns with the garage conversion so I will not consider this matter further.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed extensions on the living conditions of 9 and [address] with regards to outlook; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The dwellings at 9 and [address] are detached properties that sit on modest plots. They each have a garage on their north-western side which is set back so far that it extends into the rear garden of each property. The rear elevations of Nos. 9 and 11 face onto the side elevation of the appeal property. The existing flat roof garage of the appeal property is currently built up to the shared boundary with Nos. 9 and 11.

The appeal scheme proposes a substantial first floor extension over the entirety of the existing garage which would result in 2 storey development located much closer to Nos. 9 and 11. A large blank gable end wall would be positioned along part of the rear boundary of both these properties, although the impact would be greater on the occupiers of No 11. In relation to No 9 the extension would be built in line with the set back garage of the property rather than the habitable windows on the rear elevation of the dwelling. This means the most direct views out of the rear of No 9 would not alter greatly. However, the outlook from the rear ground floor windows of No 11 would substantially change given the proximity and siting of the large extension. The proposed extension would appear oppressive and overbearing when viewed from the rear of No 11. Furthermore, the positioning of the deep-set garages either side of the rear windows adds to the level of harm. The occupiers of No [address] brick elevations in all 3 directions when looking out of the rear of their property adding to the sense of enclosure that would be created by the proposed development. Paragraph 19.2 of the Extending your [name] states that buildings which dominate the outlook from a property can have a serious impact which is the case with the appeal scheme.

The appellant has indicated that the similar relationships between dwellings already exist across the local area. However, no examples have been provided. Without any further evidence to support this statement I am only able to place very limited weight on this argument.

By virtue of the harmful impact on outlook, I conclude that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11. This is a clear conflict with policy 10 of the [name] (ECS) and saved policy DC2 of the Erewash Borough Local Plan (EBLP) 2005 which highlight that new development should be designed to avoid harming the amenities of nearby residents.

The nearby properties within [address] are generally quite uniform in appearance. They are 2 storeys in height, constructed of brick with a projecting gable end facing the road and a set back garage or car port located to the side. The main difference with the appeal site is that the plot is wider resulting in a larger side garage.

The proposed first floor extension would cover the full expanse of the existing garage meaning the resultant extension would be wider than the existing 2 storey frontage. However, this scale is mitigated by the fact the extension is set back a significant distance from the dwelling frontage and set below the existing ridge height. This level of subservience ensures that the extension would not be unduly prominent within the wider street scene and the use of matching materials would also help the extension blend into its surroundings. This accords with the guidance within the Extending your [name] which indicates that side extensions should be set back and have a lower roof height, so they appear more sympathetic.

Concerns have been raised that the extension would be highly visible. However, due to the level of set back the extension would not be visible to pedestrians walking along [address] towards [address] until they were directly in front of the appeal property. It is accepted that the extension would be visible at the entrance to [address] however the significant set-back of the extension would prevent it appearing unduly dominant.

I conclude that the first floor side extension would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This accords with the parts of policy 10 of the ECS and saved policy DC2 of the EBLP 2005 which require the scale, design and external materials to be in keeping with host dwelling, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.